20-12-2013, 01:18 PM
I don't really like to take the risk of weak IDR, but if I were to buy, I would rather wait until SBY to step down first. My guess the political risk causes IDR to fluctuate like crazy.
20-12-2013, 01:18 PM
20-12-2013, 03:05 PM
SBY had been an incredible stabilising factor. He had far outperformed all expectations on him when he first took the job as a lame duck middle-road guy representing all factions.
I am more fearful for Indo politics when he steps down. Based on his character, he probably will not be meddling at the background as many leaders like to do, yet ironically I hope he does.
I am more fearful for Indo politics when he steps down. Based on his character, he probably will not be meddling at the background as many leaders like to do, yet ironically I hope he does.
20-12-2013, 03:43 PM
SBY has to step down because his maximum terms will be over in 2014. Before that day, the IDR will remain unstable due to the speculations and worries on his successor.
20-12-2013, 05:27 PM
(20-12-2013, 03:43 PM)valuebuddies Wrote: [ -> ]SBY has to step down because his maximum terms will be over in 2014. Before that day, the IDR will remain unstable due to the speculations and worries on his successor.
While I dun deny the SBY factor in currency weakness. But I think there are fundementally reasons such as US currency strength, Indonesia current account deficient and until recently trade deficient, outflow of funds back to US etc.
Out of the 4 factor, the currency weakness will cause trade deficient to reach equilibrium, as for fiscal matters, SBY record IMHO, is quite Erm... As for the other two, is beyond SbY.
14-02-2014, 01:18 PM
Lippo DPU falls to 0.56 cents
It is due to several results
1) currency weakness affecting revenue conversion back to S$
2) Some one off finance expenses due to the MTN notes which was repayed in Q1
I am not overly concerned with the above reasons, because 1) while valid is not something that company can control, 2) should fall to more reasonable level for Q1 onwards, when gearing fall back to 26%.
I am more concerned about its operation and is rather puzzled with the following:
Operating wise, occupancy rate is stable at 95% overall, NLA has a small 1% increase due to completion of AEI, from 719695 m2 to 725601 m2. It is still having positive rental revision with lease renewed. SO net net gross revenue for LMRT in IDR dollars should be stable or increasing.
YET, it falls from 326,105 million IDR in Q3 to 315065 million IDR in Q4
How is this possible? Any impact on revenue due to AEI should not contribute to a 5% decrease in total revenue, since Ekakokasari mall which is going through AEI has NLA of only 26000 m2
Anyone can explain?
It is due to several results
1) currency weakness affecting revenue conversion back to S$
2) Some one off finance expenses due to the MTN notes which was repayed in Q1
I am not overly concerned with the above reasons, because 1) while valid is not something that company can control, 2) should fall to more reasonable level for Q1 onwards, when gearing fall back to 26%.
I am more concerned about its operation and is rather puzzled with the following:
Operating wise, occupancy rate is stable at 95% overall, NLA has a small 1% increase due to completion of AEI, from 719695 m2 to 725601 m2. It is still having positive rental revision with lease renewed. SO net net gross revenue for LMRT in IDR dollars should be stable or increasing.
YET, it falls from 326,105 million IDR in Q3 to 315065 million IDR in Q4
How is this possible? Any impact on revenue due to AEI should not contribute to a 5% decrease in total revenue, since Ekakokasari mall which is going through AEI has NLA of only 26000 m2
Anyone can explain?
14-02-2014, 02:07 PM
(14-02-2014, 01:18 PM)Greenrookie Wrote: [ -> ]Lippo DPU falls to 0.56 cents
It is due to several results
1) currency weakness affecting revenue conversion back to S$
2) Some one off finance expenses due to the MTN notes which was repayed in Q1
I am not overly concerned with the above reasons, because 1) while valid is not something that company can control, 2) should fall to more reasonable level for Q1 onwards, when gearing fall back to 26%.
I am more concerned about its operation and is rather puzzled with the following:
Operating wise, occupancy rate is stable at 95% overall, NLA has a small 1% increase due to completion of AEI, from 719695 m2 to 725601 m2. It is still having positive rental revision with lease renewed. SO net net gross revenue for LMRT in IDR dollars should be stable or increasing.
YET, it falls from 326,105 million IDR in Q3 to 315065 million IDR in Q4
How is this possible? Any impact on revenue due to AEI should not contribute to a 5% decrease in total revenue, since Ekakokasari mall which is going through AEI has NLA of only 26000 m2
Anyone can explain?
Technically, almost all mall rentals in Indo are quoted in US$.
So again, technically, the rental revision should go up with the strength of US$.
On the rental lease, one have to be mindful about the customer (lessees) force (from 5 Porter forces).
The retailers in Indonesia are dominated by few big FISHES (MAPI, Trans Fashion etc).
Generally they command bigger say, as the economics of scale rules.
And for better or worse, 2 of its biggest anchor tenants are Matahari and Hypermart, which are owned by its parent company (Lippo Group).
You should explore more on that aspect and form our own judgement.
(Not vested)
Just my 2k rupiah.
18-02-2014, 12:40 PM
I send an email to IR and this below is our correspondence:
——————————————————————
I refer to your Q4 results.
The gross revenue in IDR has fallen from 326,105 million in Q3 to 315, 065 in Q4 million when your occupancy rate is steady at 95% with positive rental revision for the past few quarters, can you explained why?
Thank you for your kind attention
——————————————————————
The reply:
Thank you for your email. To answer your query, there are at least several reasons:
1. Generally speaking, Q3 revenue is higher than 4Q due to Indonesian Lebaran Festivals (a nationwide festival throughout the whole month of Aug) which stimulates spending nationwide.
2. The MNK operating agreement, whereby we outsource mall’s operation to third party MNK and only collect 77% of the net operating income. As operating expenses were finalized in 4Q, the net operating income was seasonably lower than first three quarters.
3. Positive rental reversion is good indicator but it only applies to the renewal leases, so that it cannot represent the overall income level.
———————————————————
Further questions:
1. Generally speaking, Q3 revenue is higher than 4Q due to Indonesian Lebaran Festivals (a nationwide festival throughout the whole month of Aug) which stimulates spending nationwide.
Isn’t rental income, or rent collected from tenants fixed? Do you mean you have a clause that allow rental increase or decrease due to the sales of tenants?
———————————————————-
IR reply:
There are certain proportion of GTO tenants in every shopping centre whereby GTO rent is linked with tenants’ sales volume. And this is only one of the reasons that can explain the drop in our revenue when you compare QoQ.
Hope the above clarify your query.
—————————————————————
My thoughts:
The reasons offered seem reasonable, and I accept them. But its does mean revenue is going to be a bit volatile, depending on how well the malls are doing. A longer tracking of their IDR revenue is needed to see if competitiveness is lost.
——————————————————————
I refer to your Q4 results.
The gross revenue in IDR has fallen from 326,105 million in Q3 to 315, 065 in Q4 million when your occupancy rate is steady at 95% with positive rental revision for the past few quarters, can you explained why?
Thank you for your kind attention
——————————————————————
The reply:
Thank you for your email. To answer your query, there are at least several reasons:
1. Generally speaking, Q3 revenue is higher than 4Q due to Indonesian Lebaran Festivals (a nationwide festival throughout the whole month of Aug) which stimulates spending nationwide.
2. The MNK operating agreement, whereby we outsource mall’s operation to third party MNK and only collect 77% of the net operating income. As operating expenses were finalized in 4Q, the net operating income was seasonably lower than first three quarters.
3. Positive rental reversion is good indicator but it only applies to the renewal leases, so that it cannot represent the overall income level.
———————————————————
Further questions:
1. Generally speaking, Q3 revenue is higher than 4Q due to Indonesian Lebaran Festivals (a nationwide festival throughout the whole month of Aug) which stimulates spending nationwide.
Isn’t rental income, or rent collected from tenants fixed? Do you mean you have a clause that allow rental increase or decrease due to the sales of tenants?
———————————————————-
IR reply:
There are certain proportion of GTO tenants in every shopping centre whereby GTO rent is linked with tenants’ sales volume. And this is only one of the reasons that can explain the drop in our revenue when you compare QoQ.
Hope the above clarify your query.
—————————————————————
My thoughts:
The reasons offered seem reasonable, and I accept them. But its does mean revenue is going to be a bit volatile, depending on how well the malls are doing. A longer tracking of their IDR revenue is needed to see if competitiveness is lost.
15-04-2014, 04:03 PM
Have you read how LippoMalls screwed exisitng shareholder big time? (Page 8-10).
My quick guess is the 5% underwriting fee ($5 million) contribute big time to the fall in DPU. Who receive this 5% fee? New Shareholder? It's like Lippo saying to new shareholder, please invest in my shares, I give you:
1. Issue price of 40.5c
2. Backdated distribution
3. 5% 'underwriting fee', so technically your buying cost is 38.475c
What a screwed up management
My quick guess is the 5% underwriting fee ($5 million) contribute big time to the fall in DPU. Who receive this 5% fee? New Shareholder? It's like Lippo saying to new shareholder, please invest in my shares, I give you:
1. Issue price of 40.5c
2. Backdated distribution
3. 5% 'underwriting fee', so technically your buying cost is 38.475c
What a screwed up management
(18-02-2014, 12:40 PM)Greenrookie Wrote: [ -> ]I send an email to IR and this below is our correspondence:
——————————————————————
I refer to your Q4 results.
The gross revenue in IDR has fallen from 326,105 million in Q3 to 315, 065 in Q4 million when your occupancy rate is steady at 95% with positive rental revision for the past few quarters, can you explained why?
Thank you for your kind attention
——————————————————————
The reply:
Thank you for your email. To answer your query, there are at least several reasons:
1. Generally speaking, Q3 revenue is higher than 4Q due to Indonesian Lebaran Festivals (a nationwide festival throughout the whole month of Aug) which stimulates spending nationwide.
2. The MNK operating agreement, whereby we outsource mall’s operation to third party MNK and only collect 77% of the net operating income. As operating expenses were finalized in 4Q, the net operating income was seasonably lower than first three quarters.
3. Positive rental reversion is good indicator but it only applies to the renewal leases, so that it cannot represent the overall income level.
———————————————————
Further questions:
1. Generally speaking, Q3 revenue is higher than 4Q due to Indonesian Lebaran Festivals (a nationwide festival throughout the whole month of Aug) which stimulates spending nationwide.
Isn’t rental income, or rent collected from tenants fixed? Do you mean you have a clause that allow rental increase or decrease due to the sales of tenants?
———————————————————-
IR reply:
There are certain proportion of GTO tenants in every shopping centre whereby GTO rent is linked with tenants’ sales volume. And this is only one of the reasons that can explain the drop in our revenue when you compare QoQ.
Hope the above clarify your query.
—————————————————————
My thoughts:
The reasons offered seem reasonable, and I accept them. But its does mean revenue is going to be a bit volatile, depending on how well the malls are doing. A longer tracking of their IDR revenue is needed to see if competitiveness is lost.
05-05-2014, 08:31 PM
Lippomall results are out:
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Press_Re...eID=295464
DPU is 0.68 cents,while nothing to shout about, I am quite happy.
Since, rental guarantee of about 2 million from Pluit Village has expired, but gross income and NPI has not fallen by the same amount as compared to Q4. In fact, occupancy of this biggest mall of Lippo has improved further.
Weak IDR is still a problem, but I am more concerned about operating weaknesses, which is not too bad.
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Press_Re...eID=295464
DPU is 0.68 cents,while nothing to shout about, I am quite happy.
Since, rental guarantee of about 2 million from Pluit Village has expired, but gross income and NPI has not fallen by the same amount as compared to Q4. In fact, occupancy of this biggest mall of Lippo has improved further.
Weak IDR is still a problem, but I am more concerned about operating weaknesses, which is not too bad.
02-06-2014, 05:06 PM
When Jokowi wins the election and euphoria kicks in, and if LMIR goes up by 10%, i will sell this shares..
FYI, i share my correspondence with Lippo IR here
==================================
Me:
Can LippoMallsT and Standard Chartered justify how they take into pricing of 0.405 into dilution of existing unitholder “distribution-dilution-1Oct-29Nov”?
Please share an example of how no-advance-distribution will not dilute unitholder instead of hollow statement saying so
==================================
IR:
Thanks for your email.
Please find below clarifications to your queries:
(1) It was mentioned in the announcement dated November 28, 2013 that "The Manager and Standard Chartered Securities (Singapore) Pte Limited, the sole bookrunner for the placement, are of the view that this arrangement is not prejudicial to existing unitholders of LMIR Trust, as compared to the situation where an "advanced" or "clean-up" distribution is made to Existing Unitholders for the period from 1 October 2013 to the day prior to the date of issue of the New Units. This is on the basis that the pricing of the New Units has taken into account the entitlement of the New Units to distrubitions accruing from 1 October 2013, instead of the date of issuance of the New Units."
(2) In term of the placement fee, the 5% set aside for fees and expenses is an estimated figure only, and include such costs and expenses such as listing fees, legal fees, fees to the banks etc. For the avoidance of doubts, please be advised that all of such fees and expenses are made to third parties, and both the REIT Manager and the Sponsor do not earn any fees from the transaction.
========================================
Me:
I read the lippo announcement regarding on sgx point 1. However, it did not address my concern on how it is not prejudicial to existing unitholder.
==========================================
Afterwards, no reply anymore.
Conclusion: No satisfactory answer, Lippo IR choose to ignore the query, hiding behind word "non-prejudicial" without evidence
FYI, i share my correspondence with Lippo IR here
==================================
Me:
Can LippoMallsT and Standard Chartered justify how they take into pricing of 0.405 into dilution of existing unitholder “distribution-dilution-1Oct-29Nov”?
Please share an example of how no-advance-distribution will not dilute unitholder instead of hollow statement saying so
==================================
IR:
Thanks for your email.
Please find below clarifications to your queries:
(1) It was mentioned in the announcement dated November 28, 2013 that "The Manager and Standard Chartered Securities (Singapore) Pte Limited, the sole bookrunner for the placement, are of the view that this arrangement is not prejudicial to existing unitholders of LMIR Trust, as compared to the situation where an "advanced" or "clean-up" distribution is made to Existing Unitholders for the period from 1 October 2013 to the day prior to the date of issue of the New Units. This is on the basis that the pricing of the New Units has taken into account the entitlement of the New Units to distrubitions accruing from 1 October 2013, instead of the date of issuance of the New Units."
(2) In term of the placement fee, the 5% set aside for fees and expenses is an estimated figure only, and include such costs and expenses such as listing fees, legal fees, fees to the banks etc. For the avoidance of doubts, please be advised that all of such fees and expenses are made to third parties, and both the REIT Manager and the Sponsor do not earn any fees from the transaction.
========================================
Me:
I read the lippo announcement regarding on sgx point 1. However, it did not address my concern on how it is not prejudicial to existing unitholder.
==========================================
Afterwards, no reply anymore.
Conclusion: No satisfactory answer, Lippo IR choose to ignore the query, hiding behind word "non-prejudicial" without evidence